The New Testament commands us never to “repay evil with evil” but to “overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17). Jesus said, “Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also” (Matthew 5:39). He also said, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Luke 6:27-28). This teaching seems pretty straightforward, and if our faith means anything, we have to take it seriously. Yet this very straightforwardness presents us with a dilemma.
On the one hand, we don’t want to say that Jesus and other New Testament authors are simply off their rockers. On the other hand, it’s very hard to take this teaching seriously in extreme situations like protecting our family from an intruder. Not only would most of us resist an evildoer in this situation, killing if necessary, but most of us would see it as immoral if we didn’t use violence to resist such an evildoer. How can refusing to protect your family by any means be considered moral? Isn’t it more loving, and thus more ethical, to protect your family at all costs?
How do we resolve this dilemma? It helps somewhat to know that the word Jesus uses for “resist” (antistenai) doesn’t mean that Jesus wants us to do nothing in the face of evil. Jesus is rather instructing his followers not to resist a forceful action with a similar forceful action. Jesus is thus teaching us not to take on the same violence of the one who is acting violently toward us. But he’s not saying do nothing.
Still, most of us would instinctively use violence to protect our family if necessary, and we would feel justified doing so! The most common way we rationalize this is by convincing ourselves that the “enemies” that Jesus referred to are not our enemies. We say Jesus didn’t mean the people who attack our family (or our nation), but must have been referring to “other kinds” of enemies, perhaps less serious enemies, or something of the sort. We tell ourselves that when violence is justified – as in “just war” ethics – Jesus’ teachings do not apply. This approach allows us to feel justified, if not positively “Christian,” killing intruders and bombing people who threaten us, so long as we are nice to our occasionally grumpy neighbors. Unfortunately, this common-sensical interpretation makes complete nonsense of Jesus’ teaching.
Jesus’ whole point is to tell disciples that their attitude toward “enemies” should be radically different from others. Jesus asked, “If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same” (Luke 6:32). Everybody instinctively hates those who hate them and believes they are justified in killing people who might kill them or their loved ones. In contrast, Jesus is saying: “Be radically different.”
This is why Jesus (and Paul) didn’t qualify the “enemies” or “evildoers” he taught us to love and not violently oppose. Jesus didn’t say, “Love your enemies until they threaten you; until it seems justified to resort to violence; or until it seems impractical to do so.” Enemies are enemies precisely because they threaten us on some level, and it always feels justified and practically expedient to resist them, if not harm them. Jesus simply said, “love your enemies” and “don’t resist evildoers.” He said this even knowing that some of his followers would confront “enemies” who would feed them and their families to lions for amusement.
Jesus’ teaching could not be more radical and as Kingdom people we have to take it seriously. At the same time, what do we do with the fact that most of us know we would not take it seriously, let alone obey it, in extreme situations like our family coming under attack?
As with all of Jesus’ teachings, it’s important to place this teaching in the broader context of Jesus’ Kingdom ministry. Jesus’ teachings aren’t a set of pacifistic laws people are to merely obey, however unnatural and immoral they seem. Rather, his teachings are descriptions of what life in the domain in which God is king looks like and prescriptions for how we are to cultivate this alternative form of living.
In other words, Jesus isn’t saying: “As much as you want to resist an evildoer and kill your enemy, and as unnatural and immoral as it seems, act lovingly toward him.” He’s rather saying: “Cultivate the kind of life where loving your enemy becomes natural for you.” He’s not merely saying, “Act different”; he’s saying, “Be different.” This is what it means to cultivate a life that looks like Jesus, dying on a cross for the people who crucified him.
A person who lived with the “normal” tit-for-tat kingdom-of-the-world mindset would instinctively resort to violence for protection if they or their loved ones were attacked. Loving his attacker and doing good to him would seem absurd and be the farthest thing from his mind. As with the Jerusalem that Jesus wept over, the “things that make for peace” would be “hidden from [his] eyes” (Luke 19:41-42). But how might a person who cultivated a nonviolent, Kingdom-of-God mindset and lifestyle on a daily basis respond differently to an attacker? How might a person who consistently lived in Christ-like love (Ephesians 5:1-2) operate in this situation?
Such a person would have cultivated the kind of character and wisdom that wouldn’t automatically default to self-protective violence. Because she would genuinely love her enemy, she would have the desire to look for, and the wisdom to see, any nonviolent alternative if one was available. She would already want to do “good” to her attacker. This wouldn’t be a matter of trying to obey an irrational rule that said, “look for an alternative in extreme situations.” In extreme situations, no one is thinking about obeying rules! Rather, it would be in the Christ-like nature of this person to see nonviolent alternatives if they were present. This person’s moment-by-moment discipleship in love would have given her a Christ-like wisdom different from the person whose mind was conformed to the pattern of the tit-for-tat world (Romans 12:2). Perhaps she’d see that pleading with, startling or distracting the attacker would be enough to save herself and her family. Perhaps she’d discern a way to allow her family to escape harm by placing herself in harm’s way.
Not only this, but this person would have cultivated a sensitivity to God’s Spirit that would enable her to discern God’s leading in the moment, something the “normal” kingdom-of-the-world person would be oblivious to. This Christ-like person might be divinely led to say something or do something that would disarm the attacker emotionally, spiritually or even physically.
For example, there is a case in which a godly woman was about to be sexually assaulted. Just as she was being pinned to the ground with a knife to her throat, she said to her attacker, “Your mother forgives you.” She had no conscious idea where the statement came from. What she didn’t know was that her attacker’s violent aggression toward women was rooted in a heinous thing he had done as a teenager to his now deceased mother. The statement shocked the man and quickly reduced him to a sobbing little boy.
The woman seized the opportunity to escape and call the police who quickly apprehended the man. He was still there, sobbing. The man later credited the woman’s inspired statement with being instrumental in his eventual decision to turn his life over to Christ. The point is that, in any given situation, God may see possibilities for nonviolent solutions we cannot see and a person who has learned to “live by the Spirit” is open to being led by God in these directions (Galatians 5:16, 18).
Not only this, but a person who has cultivated a Kingdom-of-God outlook on life would have developed the capacity to assess this situation from an eternal perspective. Having made Jesus her example on a moment-by-moment basis, she would know — not just as a “rule,” but as a heartfelt reality — the truth that living in love is more important than life itself. Her values would not be exhaustively defined by temporal expediency. Moreover, she would have cultivated a trust in God that would free her from defining “winning” and “losing” in terms of temporal outcomes. She would live in a never-ending story, having confidence in the resurrection. Knowing that death is not an ultimate evil to fear, she would be free from the “preserve my interests at all costs” mindset of the world.
Of course, it’s possible that, despite a person’s loving wisdom and openness to God, a man whose family was attacked might see no way to save himself and his family except to harm the attacker, or even to take his life. What would such a person do in this case? I think it is clear from Jesus’ teachings, life and especially his death that Jesus would choose non-violence. So, it seems to me that a person who was totally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, who had thoroughly cultivated a Kingdom mind and heart, would do the same.
At the same time, we must confess that none of us know what we would do in this situation. Indeed, many of us must honestly admit that we don’t yet quite see how it would be moral to do what we believe Jesus would do. Yet, we have to assume that if we disagree with Jesus, it is due to not having sufficiently cultivated a Kingdom heart and mind. If we felt we had to harm or take the life of another to prevent what clearly seemed to be a greater evil, we could not feel righteous or even justified about it. Like Bonhoeffer who, despite his pacifism, plotted to assassinate Hitler, we could only plead for God’s mercy.
What we must never do, however, is acquiesce to our present, non-Kingdom, spiritual condition by rationalizing away Jesus’ clear Kingdom prescriptions. We must rather strive every moment of our life to cultivate the kind of mind and heart that increasingly sees the rightness and beauty of Jesus’ teachings and thus that would naturally respond to an extreme, threatening situation in a loving, nonviolent manner.
Recommended Resources
- The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd
- A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Christian Nonviolence edited by Tripp York and Justin Bronson Barringer
- What About Hitler? by Robert Brimlow
- Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea by Mark Kurlansky
- What Would You Do? by John Howard Yoder
